Brian:
>I was interested in your claim:
>>"When the Kansas school board did nothing more than refuse to teach that the
>>mechanisms of macro evolution are know "facts", they were attacked by the
>>press as being religious extremists." -- Bertvan
>Consulting a creationist organization is something that they did, is it not?
>Now, from your original statement, quoted above, I got the impression
>that the "mechanisms of macro evolution" were included, they were just
>not taught as facts. But from what you now say, it seems that macro evolution
>is not mentioned at all. This is a completely different situation. How can
you
>teach common ancestry without macro evolution? How can you teach the
>theory of evolution without common ancestry?
Bertvan:
I judge the document produced by the Kansas school board with out
consideration of the motives or the process by which that document was
produced. It is likely that the dissenters consulted some organization
committed to a materialistic explanation of life. I have no interest in
religion, and am probably skeptical of the beliefs of many religious
people. (Those disagreements are in areas which are not likely to proved,
and I wouldn't waste my time arguing about them.) Nevertheless, when someone
produces a convincing argument for design, I try to reflect upon it without
consideration of the motives of whoever made the argument.
Would you have been satisfied if the Kansas school board had said the
following?
"Macro evolution is a mysterious process which no one has completely
explained. All life forms appear to be somehow related, and most scientists
believe that relationship is due to common ancestry. How many common
ancestors (1? 2? 5? 10? 100?) is sometimes debated. The process by which one
organism could acquire completely novel complex organisms and body parts, and
might change into an entirely different organism is still seeking
explanation."
How could they "teach" macro evolution, if they don't know how it occurred?
How can you call an unknown "a unifying theory"? Perhaps the Kansas school
board didn't mention macro evolution in the hopes of evading the uproar such
a statement as the above would have provoked.
Brian:
>Looking back through my old files I managed to find what I believe is the
>first post I read on the matter. It is written by a professor at Kansas State
>and was originally posted to the ASA site. I know this is probably old news
>for some, sorry :), but here it is anyway:
=============begin Keith Miller===============================
>A news item (Washington Post article) has been posted to both the ASA and
>ACG lists about challenges to evolution in Shawnee Mission, Kansas.
>Actually the challenge is to the statewide science standards now before the
>Kansas Borad of Education.
>To briefly fill everyone in, a 27 member committee of K-12 science
>teachers, science educators, and scientists have put together a document
>that will establish standards for the teaching of science in public schools
>in Kansas. Over a two year period, it went through several drafts and
>several rounds of public comment. During this process there was
>considerable opposition by certain Christian groups who sought the
>elimination of evolution from the curriculum. In the end, the resulting
>document was really quite well written and stressed both the nature and
>methodologies of science as well as several unifying theories and concepts
>that cut across disciplines (including evolutionary theory).
>This standards document has been before the State Board of Education for
>three months awaiting approval. However, one state board member put
>forward an alternative proposal that completely bypassed any process of
>review or public comment. It was ghost written by members of a local
>creation science organization. The document was terrible and demonstrated a
>complete lack of understanding of the nature of science. It eliminated any
>mention of evolution and also removed reference to _any_ unifying
>scientific theories. It rather put the focus on technology, and dismissed
>"theoretical science" as unproven and of little use. The unbelievable part
>is that fully half the present members of the State Board of Education (an
>elected body under no other political, educational, or legislative body)
>favored this proposal over the document developed by
>the education committee.
>The latest turn of events is that 3 members of the Board rewrote the
>standards to produce a "compromise" document. While not including the more
>egregious parts of the alternate proposal, it still eliminates the theory
>of evolution as a model for understanding the history and diversity of
>life. Furthermore it does not mention cosmology (Big Bang) or the Age of
>the Earth. It also includes errors of fact and misrepresentations of
>scientific methodology and content. This version is likely to pass the
>Board by a 6 to 4 vote.
>The original standards document is strongly supported by virtually every
>scientific and educational body in the state. The Governor and all of the
>presidents of the regents institutions have appealed to the Board to reject
>the alternate document. To put it mildly, things are a mess, and are an
>embarassment to Christians who would seek to make an impact in the
>intellectual community.
>Keith B. Miller
>Department of Geology
>Kansas State University
>Manhattan, KS 66506
======================================end==============
>Brian:
>Your tirade above about credibility takes on a whole new light. Were you
aware
>of these details?
Bertvan:
I thought this was a place where we discussed ideas, rather than use words
like "tirade".
The above is Ken Miller's opinion of the document. Rather than state his
specific objections, he uses words such as "ghost written", "terrible",
"lack of understanding of the nature of science" (Miller's personal
understanding, I presume), "egregious", "errors of fact", "misrepresentation
,"things are a mess", and "an embarrassment to Christians". I believe Ken
Miller is committed to a materialist explanation of life. (His privilege)
Nevertheless, if Miller had voiced specific examples of these "errors of
fact", I would have tried to give them my unbiased consideration.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 12:20:31 EST